The universe is just one enormous 'Soul Filtering machine'

[Harry Nevis]

So, as long as somebody is convinced, it validates the argument?!

The arguments are successful pieces of reasoning. Jorm's comment was that we need additional reasons because inferring God into existence is not compelling.

Successful in what way?  That some people believe them?  That's hardly what I would call successful reasoning.  I can demonstrate that motion from point A to point B is impossible, but that is hardly what I would call successful reasoning.

---

That there are no successful defeaters to "it just happened" and "it just is" in no way implies that they are not possible explanations.  They could be true explanations having no successful defeater.  Regardless, the fact that you are dissatisfied with them as an explanation should tell you something about the value of your natural theology arguments, because they do indeed share the same qualitative profile as explanations.  Your criticisms of them are also criticisms of your natural theology arguments.

I read Steve's post as saying there are no successful defeaters to the natural theology arguments. Perhaps he can clarify.

I seriously doubt it.  He can't tell the difference between evidence for belief and evidence for existence.